HomeCounter-Racism Radio NetworkCounter-Racism Television NetworkArticlesProjectsCounter-Racism Work/Study ProjectShopping MallContact
Secure DonationsSecure Donations  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  RegisterRegister  ProfileProfile  Log inLog in

Respect
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Counter-Racism Work/Study Project Forum Index -> Counter-Racism Definitionary
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3110
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 4:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

copious wrote:
I defined what I ment by culturally in the parentheses. "The way most people use it" is a reference to the dictionary term "respect".

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=respect

This definition does not reveal enough truth which is why I phrased it in contrast to what I was stating at the time.

When is enough truth enough? According to THE LOGIC, either you reveal truth or you promote faleshood...there ain't no in-between. "Half-truth" is falsehood.

When is enough truth enough?

copious wrote:
postive: True.

If your definition for positive is true why not just say true?

[quote="copious"]

Virtual_GOD wrote:

copious wrote:
Also can this definition be simplified to just

"Being honest to one's self" or "Being honest to self"?

If you say that you'll have to define "honest". "Being" as in a state of being? Isn't honesty an expression of feelings? How does an expression of feelings equal the revelation of truth? Which feelings? What kind if expression? An act or just a thought? If a man feels he wants to cheat on his wife but only thinks about it is that honesty?

Copious, I would like to make a suggestion if I may. Find you a 3-5 year old and every time you come up with a definition of a word that you say is designed to reveal truth, run it past them. The younger the better. Also explain to them what THE LOGIC is for the definition.

If the 3-5 year old understands the definition and THE LOGIC of the definition you should have a base to work from. Don't add any additional words! Refine the definition by removing words and/or using words that allow you to do less work using the words.


Honest: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=honest
Being: (bng)first person singular present indicative am

I didn't use "honesty".


I have been thinking about a more constructive definition than the one given while using it as a base for my own definition. I would also like others to comment on the definition.

Respect:"Accepting sole response-ability for one's self by thought, speech and action."

Is this definition more effective in revealing truth?[quote]
I don't think so. Anyone else?
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
copious



Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 248

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When is enough truth enough? - Amen

Ok. Truth is that which is. On or off. Positive or negative. I was measuring by quantity, I will refrain from doing so in the future.


Positive as meaning True, On, Correct, Constructive. Opposite of Negative, Off, Incorrect, Destructive.

Respect:"Accepting sole response-ability for one's self by [and or through] thought, speech and action."


This definition reveals truth. Do you disagree?


Perhaps the problem is we need NEW words because we are defining different things.

I have also realized you haven;t answered the questions I layed before you such as why you used a definition that has 4 negatives to produce 1 positive statement.

It's like saying "This is NOT an UNGOOD car.".

In math (the purest logic I know) : -1 * -1 = +1
The same thing happens in sentence structure. by adding a negative word and then another they cancel and produce a positive (charge). Problem is why use a negative if it's not needed? Why do you have use doing all this unecessary math -1 *-1 + -1 * -1 (your statement as I see it in pure CODE). Why not just say : 1 (ie a positive statement to begin with)?
I realize you are attempting to do somthing constructive and attempting to produce justice and I applaud that. I just question your method.


So that I may gain knowledge and overstanding would you please explain each word in your definition and its purpose for being there?

cheers,
cope
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3110
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 4:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

copious wrote:
When is enough truth enough? - Amen

Ok. Truth is that which is. On or off. Positive or negative. I was measuring by quantity, I will refrain from doing so in the future.


Positive as meaning True, On, Correct, Constructive. Opposite of Negative, Off, Incorrect, Destructive.

Respect:"Accepting sole response-ability for one's self by [and or through] thought, speech and action."


This definition reveals truth. Do you disagree?

Copious, I only agree with the definition I use. If your definition works for you then use it.

copious wrote:
Perhaps the problem is we need NEW words because we are defining different things.

I have also realized you haven;t answered the questions I layed before you such as why you used a definition that has 4 negatives to produce 1 positive statement.

It's like saying "This is NOT an UNGOOD car.".

In math (the purest logic I know) : -1 * -1 = +1
The same thing happens in sentence structure. by adding a negative word and then another they cancel and produce a positive (charge). Problem is why use a negative if it's not needed. Why not just say : 1 (ie a positive statement to begin with)?

So that I may gain knowledge and overstanding would you please explain each word in your definition and its purpose for being there?

cheers,
cope

Now copious, really...are you serious? My definition, again, for respect is refusing to lie to yourself and letting all others know you refuse to lie to yourself. My 10 year old daughter understands this definition and uses this definition.

You should use the definition that works for you.

The Counter-Racist Definitions section forum is for participants to submit words and their definitions and have those words and definitions scientifically reviewed by others. What "scientifically reviewed" means is each participant decides for themselves if they would like to follow the scientific process with what has been submitted. If the participant decides to follow the scientific process with what has been submitted the participant (scientist) develops a hypothesis and does experimentation. If the participant (scientist) that has developed a hypothesis and does experimentation has any questions, the participant (scientist) should ask the question of the submitter of the definition.

If need be, the scientist should make brief statements prior to asking questions. Now, each participant (scientist) can decide for themselves if the word and its definition works for them. If it doesn't work for you don't use it!

There are existing words under the Counter-Racist Definitions section that I simply do not use. When I have questions I ask them of the submitter of a definition. If someone asks me questions of a word and its definition that I've submitted I answer those questions to the best of my ability.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
copious



Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 248

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Virtual_GOD wrote:
Now copious, really...are you serious? My definition, again, for respect is refusing to lie to yourself and letting all others know you refuse to lie to yourself. My 10 year old daughter understands this definition and uses this definition.


Thank you for responding, but that wasn't an answer to the question I posed.

Also would you please answer the others questions I posed 2 messages back as well?


Thanks in advance,
cope
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3110
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 1:31 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

copious wrote:
Virtual_GOD wrote:
Now copious, really...are you serious? My definition, again, for respect is refusing to lie to yourself and letting all others know you refuse to lie to yourself. My 10 year old daughter understands this definition and uses this definition.


Thank you for responding, but that wasn't an answer to the question I posed.

Also would you please answer the others questions I posed 2 messages back as well?


Thanks in advance,
cope

Sure.

copious wrote:
This definition reveals truth. Do you disagree?

I don't know.

copious wrote:
I have also realized you haven;t answered the questions I layed before you such as why you used a definition that has 4 negatives to produce 1 positive statement.

By "positive" you say you mean "true" and by "negative" you say you mean "false".

In direct answer to your question I didn't know I was using four falses to produce one truth. I don't know how that is possible. Recheck your math please...that doesn't compute.

copious wrote:
Problem is why use a negative if it's not needed?

By "positive" you say you mean "true" and by "negative" you say you mean "false".

In direct answer to your question I didn't know I was using a "false" (negative).

copious wrote:
Why not just say : 1 (ie a positive statement to begin with)?

By "positive" you say you mean "true" and by "negative" you say you mean "false".

In direct answer to your question I didn't know I wasn't using a "truth" (positive).

copious wrote:
So that I may gain knowledge and overstanding would you please explain each word in your definition and its purpose for being there?

Here is the explanation of each word in my definition and its purpose for being there.

In direct answer to your question, each word in my definition is a sound plus a design. The purpose of the words in my definition is communication.

Now, let's make sure I've answered all of your questions sir. Oh...there is one more...

copious wrote:
Is this definition more effective in revealing truth?

I don't know.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Trina



Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 416
Location: Somewhere Between the 3rd and 5th Dimension

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 5:38 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Virtual_GOD wrote:
Trina wrote:
Virtual_GOD,

Like I was saying in my earlier post that the English language is a deceptive language and that a lot of words have to be re-defined, refined,
or dropped from usage altogether. We can say respect because self-respect does imply another form of respect.

I agree with you!

Trina

Trina,

According to the definition you've provided (self) respect cannot exist unless we are under a system of justice. Is this correct?

I could be incorrect but number two (2) states that (self) respect is "The just treatment of the total self (mind, body,spirit)". How can you have justice or just treatment in the same universe as injustice at the same time?


Virtual_GOD,

Correct. Self-respect cannot exist unless we are under a system of justice. Since we exist under a system of injustice(lack of balance between people) than that would mean no one has any self-respect.

The answer to your second question is you can't have just treatment in the same universe where injustice exist. However, you can have people who try to attempt to treat other people in a just way. You can attempt to treat yourself in a just manner.

Trina
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Wickett Fan



Joined: 30 Jul 2003
Posts: 64
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 7:05 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

I can overstand the need to redefine words used to oppress us but only if we all agree on the new definition. How do persons communicate with each other if they are each redefining every other word? What practical purpose does this serve?
_________________
Any use of the word, "Nigger(s)" translates into the following statement: "Consciously or subconsciously, I am helping to maintain the local, national, global system of Racism (White Supremacy)". ~ Dr. Francis C. Welsing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3110
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 7:12 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Trina wrote:
Virtual_GOD wrote:
Trina wrote:
Virtual_GOD,

Like I was saying in my earlier post that the English language is a deceptive language and that a lot of words have to be re-defined, refined,
or dropped from usage altogether. We can say respect because self-respect does imply another form of respect.

I agree with you!

Trina

Trina,

According to the definition you've provided (self) respect cannot exist unless we are under a system of justice. Is this correct?

I could be incorrect but number two (2) states that (self) respect is "The just treatment of the total self (mind, body,spirit)". How can you have justice or just treatment in the same universe as injustice at the same time?


Virtual_GOD,

Correct. Self-respect cannot exist unless we are under a system of justice. Since we exist under a system of injustice(lack of balance between people) than that would mean no one has any self-respect.

The answer to your second question is you can't have just treatment in the same universe where injustice exist. However, you can have people who try to attempt to treat other people in a just way. You can attempt to treat yourself in a just manner.

Trina

Thank you Trina...I wanted to be sure before I went further. You say (self) respect as you define it cannot exist under a SYSTEM of white supremacy (racism).

The reason I use the definition of respect that I use, which is refusing to lie to yourself and letting all others know you refuse to lie to yourself, is because people can do this under a SYSTEM of injustice or a SYSTEM of justice.

The practical value is that niggers don't get to lay on the excuse that "nobody respects anybody else anyway" and use that as justification for not promoting justice and correctness in all places and at all times.

I can picture a nigger right now beating his wife and when he's asked how can he respect himself and beat his wife he responds by saying..."well, I can't possibly repsect myself under a SYSTEM of injustice so what the hell are you talking about".

Sorry Trina...I didn't see that you had changed the definition excluding the second aspect. Well, that is the practical value I see in excluding the second aspect of what the definition used to be.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dan Freeman



Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 651
Location: Wherever I'm sent.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 7:20 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Wickett Fan wrote:
I can overstand the need to redefine words used to oppress us but only if we all agree on the new definition. How do persons communicate with each other if they are each redefining every other word? What practical purpose does this serve?


How do persons communicate with each other if they are each redefining every other word?

I'm not sure I understand that question, but I will attempt to respond the best the best way I can.

Based on the current state of the planet, I suspect most communication between people, especially Non-white people, is NOT very clear.

What practical purpose does this serve?

Communication between people that is not clear or most importantly does not reveal truth serves the system of Racsim/White Supremacy.

I define words with definitions that BEST REVEAL TRUTH.

And in conpensatory fashion, I also choose NOT TO USE words that have definitons that DO NOT reveal truth.

But that's just me.

smallz
_________________
Understanding is honoring the truth beneath the surface.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Wickett Fan



Joined: 30 Jul 2003
Posts: 64
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 10:30 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

smallz wrote:
Wickett Fan wrote:
I can overstand the need to redefine words used to oppress us but only if we all agree on the new definition. How do persons communicate with each other if they are each redefining every other word? What practical purpose does this serve?


How do persons communicate with each other if they are each redefining every other word?

I'm not sure I understand that question, but I will attempt to respond the best the best way I can.

Based on the current state of the planet, I suspect most communication between people, especially Non-white people, is NOT very clear.

What practical purpose does this serve?

Communication between people that is not clear or most importantly does not reveal truth serves the system of Racsim/White Supremacy.

I define words with definitions that BEST REVEAL TRUTH.

And in conpensatory fashion, I also choose NOT TO USE words that have definitons that DO NOT reveal truth.

But that's just me.

smallz


Ok I think I get it. Thanks, Smallz.

I don't want to change the topic, but I think this link revels some truth... http://www.npr.org/programs/day/features/2003/jul/buzzwords/
_________________
Any use of the word, "Nigger(s)" translates into the following statement: "Consciously or subconsciously, I am helping to maintain the local, national, global system of Racism (White Supremacy)". ~ Dr. Francis C. Welsing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Trina



Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 416
Location: Somewhere Between the 3rd and 5th Dimension

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 3:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Trina wrote:
Virtual_GOD wrote:
Trina wrote:
Virtual_GOD,

Like I was saying in my earlier post that the English language is a deceptive language and that a lot of words have to be re-defined, refined,
or dropped from usage altogether. We can say respect because self-respect does imply another form of respect.

I agree with you!

Trina

Trina,

According to the definition you've provided (self) respect cannot exist unless we are under a system of justice. Is this correct?

I could be incorrect but number two (2) states that (self) respect is "The just treatment of the total self (mind, body,spirit)". How can you have justice or just treatment in the same universe as injustice at the same time?


Virtual_GOD,

Correct. Self-respect cannot exist unless we are under a system of justice. Since we exist under a system of injustice(lack of balance between people) than that would mean no one has any self-respect.

The answer to your second question is you can't have just treatment in the same universe where injustice exist. However, you can have people who try to attempt to treat other people in a just way. You can attempt to treat yourself in a just manner.

Trina


Virtual_GOD,

You wrote: Sorry Trina...I didn't see that you had changed the definition excluding the second aspect. Well, that is the practical value I see in excluding the second aspect of what the definition used to be.

I did delete the second aspect of the definition and used the definiton as prescribed in the Code book. I can accept that definition.

Trina
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
copious



Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 248

PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:05 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Trina,

Hello. I asked you some quastions earlier and you didn't reply.
Heres what i found in the 'code book'.

The UIC C/S/C defines respect as wrote:
The process of seeking to know and understand all that is not known and understood

Explanation:
Respect is not something that one "has", as so much as it is somthing that one does. Respect is somthing that one participates in


The more I read this definition the more I like it. Ant no storing up respect like a camel hump. No no no. It's a process, to be continued...

cope
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wickett Fan



Joined: 30 Jul 2003
Posts: 64
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2003 4:37 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

copious wrote:
Trina,

Hello. I asked you some quastions earlier and you didn't reply.
Heres what i found in the 'code book'.

The UIC C/S/C defines respect as wrote:
The process of seeking to know and understand all that is not known and understood

Explanation:
Respect is not something that one "has", as so much as it is somthing that one does. Respect is somthing that one participates in


The more I read this definition the more I like it. Ant no storing up respect like a camel hump. No no no. It's a process, to be continued...
cope


I am curious... Why choose to redefine "respect" like this? The conscern I have is that English is largely based on anchent European tongues such as Latin. From Latin respectus to look back (looking back when someone of high regard approaches). The practical advantage of this is it allows people to coin new phrases to explain a new experience. Knowing the basis of language (Latin) allow one to figure out the meaning of an unknown word.

I overstand why it is important to ask people exactly what they mean when they speak...but this is different. Its not like refining the definition of Justice to be "guaranteeing theat no one is mistreated and those that need the most help get the most help".

This new definition of "respect" sounds a LOT like the barebones of "scientific method" to me. See for yourself from Websters:

scientific method
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

So if the idea you are trying to express already exists in English, why does the Code book use it on a totally unrelated term?
_________________
Any use of the word, "Nigger(s)" translates into the following statement: "Consciously or subconsciously, I am helping to maintain the local, national, global system of Racism (White Supremacy)". ~ Dr. Francis C. Welsing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3110
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2003 7:49 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

copious wrote:
Trina,

Hello. I asked you some quastions earlier and you didn't reply.
Heres what i found in the 'code book'.

The UIC C/S/C defines respect as wrote:
The process of seeking to know and understand all that is not known and understood

Explanation:
Respect is not something that one "has", as so much as it is somthing that one does. Respect is somthing that one participates in


The more I read this definition the more I like it. Ant no storing up respect like a camel hump. No no no. It's a process, to be continued...

cope

You'll notice the UICCSC has two definitions of respect...there's one for respect and there's one for self-respect.

Now, the one you posted above is in the UICCSC as the definition of respect. I say that definition is not compensatory, nor is it logical. In other words, it is not necessary to know everything that is not known. For example, it is not compensatory to know where every blade of grass is, on this planet, that is over 2 inches tall. Why is it necessary to know this?

This is also what makes an educated person, according to the UICCSC. An educated person, according to the UICCSC, is a person that knows all things about all things or all things about one thing.

I think the "why" is very important. Non-white people should ask themselves this question...

Why do I want to replace white supremacy (racism) with justice?

I have seen that what happens is some non-white people only focus on getting rid of white supremacy (racism)...but they don't focus on producing justice. This is a natural response to being mistreated on the basis of color. Stop the mistreatment!

Counter-racist codification goes a step further by, conceptually speaking, establishing a SYSTEM of justice. Compensatory, meaning making up for what's missing. If you have injustice what is missing is justice. Racism (white supremacy) is a SYSTEM of injustice and we should want to replace that with a SYSTEM of justice.

Why do I want to replace white supremacy (racism) with justice?
My answer, because a SYSTEM of justice is better than a SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy), conceptually speaking. A SYSTEM of justice meaning, guaranteeing that no person is mistreated and also guaranteeing the person that needs help the most gets the most help.

In my compensatory act of replacing the SYSTEM of white supremacy (racism) with a SYSTEM of justice is it necessary for me to know where every blade of grass is, on this planet, that is over 2 inches tall? I say it isn't compensatory for me to know where every blade of grass is, on this planet, that is over 2 inches tall in order to replace the SYSTEM of white supremacy (racism) with a SYSTEM of justice.

I spoke to Mr. Fuller about these two definitions in the UICCSC a couple of years ago and I asked him what is the practical value of having two definitions for respect in the UICCSC when there is only one kind of respect and that is self-respect. Mr. Fuller stated "the definition of respect in the UICCSC leads you to the definition of self-respect".

I asked Mr. Fuller, "so you're saying one definition leads you to the other definition"? Mr. Fuller replied "yes" and I responded by saying "that's not logical". I then asked "is it correct to have one definition of a word that leads you to another definition"...I gave him my definition of correct, meaning saying and/or doing things using the least amount of words to reveal truth. Mr. Fuller replied, "based on that definition...no it is not correct".

You have to run everything through the scientific process, which includes a lot of lab work. Don't just take things as being true or correct. Do your own work. The UICCSC is a great place to start...but do your own work!
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
James Jones
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Decodified

Respect: To not mistreat.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Counter-Racism Work/Study Project Forum Index -> Counter-Racism Definitionary All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Web CalendarShopping MallDonations